EE Canberra and Martin B-57

[TsrJoe]

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,11825.30.html

a few possibles, eg, passenger (real project), flying boat (pre project), floatplane, etc. i like the turboprop ideas too tho, a few others my dad put together are a passenger flying boat (very 1950's!) and a swept wing type too (Martin aircraft also played with a similar design development for the B.57!)

cheers, Joe

[elmayerle]

I'm thinking contra-rotating and around 5 blades each.

Regards,

Greg

Absolutely       what type if intake, Dart/Tyne style or above/below style

This engineer suggests that the Dart/Tyne style would work better with the lines of the Canberra.

[kitnut617]

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,11825.30.html

a few possibles, eg, passenger (real project), flying boat (pre project), floatplane, etc. i like the turboprop ideas too tho, a few others my dad put together are a passenger flying boat (very 1950's!) and a swept wing type too (Martin aircraft also played with a similar design development for the B.57!)

cheers, Joe

One of these 1/24 scale Spitfire floats would work for a 1/72 Canberra Flying Boat, 1/72 scale wise they measure out at 10 feet across the widest point and 10 feet deep at the step.

[Glenn Gilbertson]

Hiya chaps...English Electric came up with a 'fighter Canberra' back in 1956! Known as the P.12 it was derived from the B.8 with a 'thimble' type radome containing AI.18 radar (similar to some of the trials aircraft!) and was intended to carry the big Vickers Red Dean missile either on or just under its wingtips!

theres a 3view drawing in Tony Buttler's BSP. Bombers volume, page 13

Tony Butler also quotes "all-up-weight with two Red Dean plus guns 41,771lb (18.947kg". The drawing does not show any guns; does anyone know if the proposal was for a belly pack like the B.(I.)8 or to mount the cannons in the wings? 20mm or 30mm guns - and how many?

[MAD]

I have always liked the versatility of the Canberra light bomber design
As I have always liked the idea of a carrier-based variant, I thought I would have a go at doing a couple of variants for use by the Royal Navy, if they had of continued with their Elizabeth Class conventional carrier program.

My navalised Canberra is in answer to the Royal Navy's request for proposals for a cost effective carrier-based ASW/Anti-ship platform to operate from its new Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.
The Royal Navy deems the likes of the Grumman S-2 Tracker, although an excellent design, to slow in terms of transit speed to a from patrol or hunting area for practical and
tactical use.
While it has been briefed by the US Navy of its up and coming VSX program (Lockheed S-3 Viking), to replace the Tracker, the Royal navy sees this as a long term project that it will follow with interest as it matures into the prototype stage of development

The Royal Navy request an off the shelf ASW sensor array to be fitted, again for cost and immediate operational availability.

English Electric teams up with Grumman to incorporate most of the ASW sensors and avionics into a modified Canberra B (1) 8 airframe

The following modifications are incorporated into the Canberra, so as to carry out the ASW/Anti-ship role:
-Outer wings are hinged for folding
-A surface-search / attack radar is fitted
-A Martin style rotary bomb bay/fuel tank arrangement is incorporated (i.e. XB-51, B-57,
Buccaneer style). This is done to allow fuselage fuel cells to be replaced by ASW
avionics in the fuselage.
-Two 16-round sonar buoy launchers are fitted at the rear fuselage
-A retractable MAD boom (as the type used by the Grumman S-2 Tracker) is fitted at the
  rear fuselage.
-A tail fin EW/RWR pod is fitted.
-The landing gear is beefed up for carrier-landings
-The nose landing gear has a longer strut /oleo to give an improved angle of attack on
  take off
-An additional cockpit is fitted (although I think I like the B-57's tandem arrangement
  better!)
-The RR Avon engines are up rated for more thrust on take off.
-Facilities are made for the fitting of RATO for heavy take offs launches
-A retractable arrester hook is fitted
-Avionics are fitted to allow the use of MK-44 light-weight ASW torpedoes and AS.30 
ASM's

P.S. I am still trying to get my head around colouring and makings - sorry
      I welcome anyone to have a go at putting my drawing in Royal Navy Clours and markings of the day!

M.A.D

[kitnut617]

That nose has a distinct Banshee look to it in profile     but I would have made the canopy flat across the top like a Skynight or something along those lines.

[van883]

Having just obtained B-57 Canberra at war by Mikesh I am left wondering why RAF Canberra's had such (relatively) feeble weapon loads...only 2 underwing hardpoints for example. In fact I often wonder why Lightnings only ever carried 2 missiles. Buccaneers seemed to have a far greater capacity for hauling bombs than they did-pretty underarmed in comparison to the F-105 , F-4 and A-7. In fact, why did the RAF tend to underarm aircraft in general?
Can anyone enlighten me?

cheers


Van

[kitnut617]

In fact I often wonder why Lightnings only ever carried 2 missiles.
cheers
Van

The Lightning originally had a weapons bay just behind the nose wheel bay which held 24(IIRC) unguided rockets. These were held in tubes set in the bay doors and were very much like how the F-102/106 carried and fired them.  Also had two 30mm' in the nose above the intake.

Robert

[van883]

The Lightning originally had a weapons bay just behind the nose wheel bay which held 24(IIRC) unguided rockets. These were held in tubes set in the bay doors and were very much like how the F-102/106 carried and fired them.  Also had two 30mm' in the nose above the intake.

Yes I knew that, thanks-I should have been more specific regarding the Lightnings-I was referring to the feeble missile armament- I know the Lightning could get to its target quickly and then only have 2 50's technology missiles to use. If the USAF experience in Vietnam is anything to go by, both might miss their targets.....and then?

Van

[jcf]

Its the Canberra versus B-57 armament question I am interested in mostly.

Van

Canberra B.2, B.6:
6,000lbs internal load (six 1,000lb or one 4,000lb + two 1,000lb or eight 500lb or other combinations)

Canberra B(I)8:
6,000lbs internal load (same as B.2, B.6) or four 20mm Hispano cannon + two 1,000lb bombs internal load
2,000lbs external load (typically including 1,000lb bombs or two rocket pods each with thirty-seven 2in rockets)

Martin B-57A:
4,000lbs internal load
3,000lbs external load bombs or rockets

Martin B-57B:
5,000lbs + internal load (four 1,000lb or nine 500lb or twenty-one 260lb or two Mk 9 1,500lb Special Weapons)
3,000lbs external load (four bombs - 750lb stores or less, eight 5in HVAR or twenty-eight 2.75in FFAR. Double if wing bomb pylons are used.)
Eight .50 cal MG with 300 rpg (up to 52-1575) or four 20mm M39 with 290 rpg (from 52-1576)

The B-57B and the Canberra B(I)8 were similar in speed but, the B-57B had a much shorter range - 2,300 miles versus 3,400 miles.

The differences reflect the differences in intended use, the Canberra was designed as a conventional tactical bomber, the B-57 Intruder was in reality an attack aircraft intended as a low-level night-bomber for interdiction missions. Structurally it was beefed up from the original EE design.

Jon

[GTX]

My navalised Canberra is in answer to the Royal Navy's request for proposals for a cost effective carrier-based ASW/Anti-ship platform to operate from its new Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

Well, my turboprop Canberra will be somewhat similar - basically something filling the roles of ASW, ASuW, Land Attack, AAR and EW, much in the same vein as the S-3 Viking family.  I haven't decided what canopy style to go for, though am thinking of at least a 3 man crew.

I'm also toying with the idea of an AEW version with radar either on the tail (AN-71 style - see pic). 



or with a radar front and back Andover AEW or HS P.139 style:




Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

I recently read that the Israelis did consider the RB-57F as a strategic recon platform instead of the RF-4E(S).

Regards,

Greg

[Archibald]

I recently read that the Israelis did consider the RB-57F as a strategic recon platform instead of the RF-4E(S).

Regards,

Greg

I think relation between the two machines was this huge HIAC-1 recon camera. In the 60's only RB-57 could carry it, after 1975 it had "shrinked" enough to fit into a RF-4 (highly modified) nose. Four Phantoms were modified, they had been withdrawn recently...

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Over on Hyperscale there are a few nice images of a Airfix's 1/48 scale Canberra B(I)8 that was built by by Spencer Pollard at this link: http://www.hyperscale.com/2008/galleries/canberrabi848sp_1.htm. 

[Daryl J.]

How 'bout putting some fuel tanks the size of the F-89J tip pods out on the ends of the wings and giving the B(1) variant some suitable Arctic Red/NMF and sending her and friends up to Alaska for some duty?     One will notice that it is *left* hand drive...........................

RCAF but with a group similar to EPTS and a paint scheme not dissimilar to the Air Canada livery of the early 1970's.



Daryl J.